[Fedora-packaging] Packaging xulrunner extensions: dependencies

Ville-Pekka Vainio vpivaini at cs.helsinki.fi
Tue Jul 22 18:36:13 UTC 2008


Hi,

I recently posted an email about Firefox/xulrunner extensions and dependencies 
to fedora-devel, but I got no answers, so I'll try this list as well. Here's 
what I wrote:

> As we just saw with nspluginwrapper, packaging things dependening on
> xulrunner/Firefox is a bit problematic. My Mozvoikko package was recently
> approved by Ville Skyttä
> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448215) but he had a good
> question about the dependencies:
>
> "If I understand correctly, using xulrunner-unstable makes this prone to
> breakage on updates - is there some versioned dependency towards some
> package that could be used so that it would be easier to notice such
> cases?"
>
> I think the answer here is no. Or is there? We just saw what happens if you
> hardcode a xulrunner version as a dependency, there will be breakage as
> soon as xulrunner is updated. I had the Mozvoikko package from that review
> installed as well and it worked fine after the update of Firefox and
> xulrunner. So I think I should just leave the xulrunner dependency
> unversioned and rebuild the mozvoikko package if I notice the extension
> being broken after a xulrunner update.
>
> I also noticed something interesting about xulrunner-devel and
> xulrunner-devel-unstable. Mozvoikko can't be built just with the stable
> headers which apparently are in /usr/include/xulrunner-sdk-1.9/stable/. For
> example it needs mozISpellCheckingEngine.h. This file can be found from two
> locations, however. The xulrunner-devel package puts it
> in /usr/include/xulrunner-sdk-1.9/spellchecker/mozISpellCheckingEngine.h
> and the xulrunner-devel-unstable package puts it
> in /usr/include/xulrunner-sdk-1.9/unstable/mozISpellCheckingEngine.h. Why
> are there two copies and is it considered stable or unstable? I'm thinking
> it's "classified" as unstable, but why is it in the "stable devel package"
> then as well?

If anyone has any answers or ideas on packaging the extension, I would really 
appreciate the feedback.


-- 
Ville-Pekka Vainio




More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list